Opinions on VGs - Page 2 - Fuelly Forums
Go Back   Fuelly Forums > Fuel Talk > Aerodynamics
Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
View Poll Results: What tent stake should I use for VGs
Plastic - simpler to make and install, no worries 4 80.00%
Metal - more flexibility in VG length, rusting worry down the road, cheaper 1 20.00%
Voters: 5. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-25-2009, 12:32 PM   #11
Registered Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 13
Country: United States
Make 'em. It's easy.

Don't be nervous about steel 'cause they're aluminum. No rust and super light (for better FE).

And cheap. Made mine out of scrap.

Plus they make that cool pattern on the window with a dusting of snow. It proves they MUST work!!
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	roof vg's.jpg
Views:	140
Size:	72.6 KB
ID:	1332  
Attached Images

SloSaturn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 07:47 AM   #12
Registered Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,280
Country: United States
Location: north east PA
I didn't see the one about using the CDs, but I'm using the post I believe SloSaturn used as a guideline. The HHR has the squared back end, so I was going to try the the basic 4in strake at a 15 to 20 degree angle along the edge. Likely have some on the sides also. Depending on how much material is left over, maybe even do some tuft testing on the hood.
Found a can of plastic spray paint at home. The safety angle was the deciding factor, but this helped. An inch height is recommended for the VG, so I'll check the tent stakes and corner protectors dimensions. I'm guessing the protectors will win out on price, but the tent stake tips would look better on the hood.

trollbait is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2009, 07:11 PM   #13
Registered Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3
Country: United States
I opted for making mine out for .020 sheet aluminum and mounted them with 3M indoor/outdoor double sided tape which covers the entire bottom surface. These suckers are not going anywhere. I think the key it to prepare both mating surfaces properly. Dont paint the bottom surfave of the DIY VG's and throughly clean the rooftop surface with alcohol.

fatchick1o9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2009, 04:29 AM   #14
Registered Member
theholycow's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,624
Country: United States
Send a message via ICQ to theholycow Send a message via AIM to theholycow Send a message via MSN to theholycow Send a message via Yahoo to theholycow
Looks great!

Did you do any tuft-testing before installation?

Do you have a gaslog before installation?
This sig may return, some day.
theholycow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 11:34 PM   #15
Registered Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3
Country: United States
Yeah I did the tuft testing before and after installation. I was amazed at the tuft test results before installation. At 15-20 MPH the tufts started dancing around in all directions. At 25-30 the tufts actually started to move UP the window, opposite direction of "expected airflow". I only drove about 1 mile reaching 50 MPH before I realized just how messed up the airflow was on the back of my Mustang.

So after I installed the VG's and did the same drive test, they layed down perfectly as the sir was flowing over the back of the car like it should have been. So the VG's worked perfectly.

Since my VG's are kind of a DIY rip off of the Airtabs, with similar dimensions, I used the Airtabs specs for spacing. Spaced 4" on center. But I screwed up my count on the manufacturing. My roof width at the install point was 48". So I would have needed 11 VG's spaced 4" to cover the roof properly. At first I did 9 of the spaced at 4" and had a 6" dead zone on the drivvers side. Sure enough, I had some drivers side tufts that acted erradiicly. So I busted out the sheet aluminum, stencil and shears and made 1 more. I then respaced the 10 (should have been 11) to be like 4" then 4.25" then 4.5" on center to span the width of the roof.

As far as data...

I have only collected a small amount of data with the VG's. Only 4, 1/2 tank runs. So, only time will tell the real deal. As a side note, these 4, 1/2 tank runs were with my stock 5.0 Mustang spoiler removed. I did not want to damage it while standing on the back of the car installing the VG's.

Before VG's 22-27 MPG
After VG's 24-29 MPG

The results are promising. And I have noticed that the back of the car feels more stable, even without the spoiler,. I've had this Mustang for 10+ years and have completely rebuilt it from the ground up to be a road racer. However, it is my daily driver so a ANY minor difference in the handling or performance is something I pick up on right away.

I am new to the forum, but will keep with it and post any relevant results as they become available.

fatchick1o9 is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Shift points changed? GasSavers_veloman Transmissions and Running Gear 12 11-17-2008 10:56 AM
How about some Bat Wings Batman! molinee General Fuel Topics 10 05-10-2008 07:57 PM
Fuel Economy Run information GasSavers_Graeme General Fuel Topics 2 01-16-2008 01:28 PM
FS: civic VX O2 sensors (5-wire) first350 For Sale 6 12-10-2007 08:06 AM
Not to get overly political on GS, but... theclencher Automotive News, Articles and Products 11 08-05-2007 11:14 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.